Quote from: amaclin on October 05, 2015, 08:18:43 PM

What goal you want to achieve? Do you want to tighten transaction validation rules?
Isn't it better not to confirm txs with high-S by miners?

The goal is to minimize malleability in the long run, and there are few parts playing together:

1. wallets, which create transactions with "compliant" or "non-compliant" signatures
2. nodes, which relay or don't relay transactions with "non-compliant" signatures
3. miners, which mine or don't mine transactions with "non-compliant" signatures

("compliant" -> low s, "non-compliant" -> high s)

If BIP 62 rule 5 becomes a standard policy (or is enforced), then it would become harder to relay non-compliant transactions, though, the transactions of non-compliant wallets would also be rejected, which is probably not a favorable outcome.

Ideally miners don't mine non-compliant transactions, but assuming they reject all of them right now, at a time when not all wallets create low s values, then the same issue applies: legit transactions are not mined.

The ongoing active mutation of transactions made me wonder, whether targeted mutation could be leveraged - by miners or nodes - to facilitate the process:

By "fixing" non-compliant transactions the issue of dropped or rejected legit transactions would be addressed to some degree, and if primarily non-compliant transactions are mutated, then it could serve as wake up call for wallet software creators (and user's of such wallets), as the sentiment may shift from "let's pitchfork amaclin for messing with our transactions" to "let's create/use better wallets, which don't create bad transactions".

Once that happened, it could be considered to only accept low s signatures, first in form of a standard policy, and at some point it could enforced.